R v Sheedy - [1999] QCA 446

99.446

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
THOMAS JA
ATKINSON J

CA No 238 of 1999

THE QUEEN

STEVEN JAMES SHEEDY Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/10/99

JUDGMENT

ATKINSON J: The applicant, Steven James Sheedy, has applied for leave to appeal against sentence. Mr Sheedy was charged with murdering Melvin Douglas Wilson on 4 December 1997.

After a trial in the Supreme Court he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 years and a declaration was made pursuant to section 161(B) of the Penalties and Sentences Act that the offence of which he was convicted was a serious violent offence. A declaration was made that the period of 571 days from 4 December 1997 to 28 June 1999 was to be time already spent in the serving of the sentence. The applicant appeals on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offence were that in the early hours of the morning of 4 December 1997 the deceased entered the applicant's room by a window from which he had removed a wire screen. He had previously been yelling out to the applicant to let him in for a considerable period. The motive for the deceased's entering the applicant's room remains obscure although it appeared to be that it was to remonstrate against the applicant's sexual conduct with a woman in his room earlier in the evening. Both men were residents in a boarding house.

When the deceased entered the applicant's room he appeared, as the learned sentencing Judge found, to have no means of inflicting any but the slightest harm on the applicant. Various witnesses heard the deceased for some time calling out for the applicant to leave him alone. The applicant set upon the deceased with a knife, stabbing him 15 times. Four of these wounds were potentially fatal and there were 11 other deep, penetrating wounds which did not harm any vital organs.

There were a number of other injuries including cuts to the deceased's face and lacerations to his skull which must have been inflicted with a blunt weapon. The learned sentencing Judge found that those skull wounds and at least one of the stab wounds were inflicted when the deceased must have been close to death, inert, and obviously incapable of resisting the applicant's attacks on him.

As well as suffering the disadvantage in combat of being drunk, naked and unarmed, the deceased was a much smaller man both in height and weight to the accused. It appeared that he lost a great deal of blood during an attack which persisted for a considerable time after it was obvious that the deceased could not possibly pose any threat to the applicant. The jury's verdict however meant that they found that the applicant's actions were not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

The personal circumstances of the applicant, as was shown in a psychiatric report by Dr Fama, were that he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Sheedy

Details

AGLC: R v Sheedy [1999] QCA 446
Case: [1999] QCA 446
Decision Date: 27/10/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sheedy, Steven James Sheedy appealed against his sentence for manslaughter. He was convicted of manslaughter for the stabbing death of Melvin Douglas Wilson, who had entered Sheedy's room in the early hours of the morning. The motivation for Wilson's entry was unclear but appeared to relate to a prior disagreement over Sheedy's sexual conduct with a woman in his room. Despite Wilson being unarmed, naked, and drunk, Sheedy stabbed him fifteen times, including four potentially fatal wounds. The jury found that Sheedy's actions were not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence of twelve years imprisonment was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered Sheedy's mental health conditions. The court noted that Sheedy had a history of schizophrenia and alcohol abuse, which may have impaired his judgment at the time of the offence. The sentencing judge acknowledged these factors but did not give them significant weight. The court found that Sheedy's residual schizophrenia was a relevant mitigating factor, particularly given the disproportionate nature of his violent response.

The court compared the sentence in this case to other manslaughter cases, finding that a sentence of nine to eleven years imprisonment was typical for similar offences. Given that the sentence in this case was twelve years, the court found it manifestly excessive and varied the sentence to ten years imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied accordingly.

Orders